Flaws in David1819's Sheila scenario.

[killingeve]

It doesn't have to involve anyone else other than herself though,does it ? Drawback or not.

The prosecution case against Bamber involves a blood flake found within the silencer which the lab claimed matched 5 of Sheila's blood groups.  The expert testimony asserted the flake found its way inside the silencer as a result of drawback.  If you believe this is wrong whose blood do you believe was in the silencer and how did it get there?

[Roch]

The prosecution case against Bamber involves a blood flake found within the silencer which the lab claimed matched 5 of Sheila's blood groups.  The expert testimony asserted the flake found its way inside the silencer as a result of drawback.  If you believe this is wrong whose blood do you believe was in the silencer and how did it get there?

Malcolm Fletcher got this theory from a textbook or academic paper. He carried out no experiments to replicate the process / substantiate the claim. The question you're asking is possibly facetious, as you are patently aware that deliberate contamination is a very strong contender.

[David1819]

Malcolm Fletcher got this theory from a textbook or academic paper. He carried out no experiments to replicate the process / substantiate the claim. The question you're asking is possibly facetious, as you are patently aware that deliberate contamination is a very strong contender.

She is indeed.

[killingeve]

Malcolm Fletcher got this theory from a textbook or academic paper. He carried out no experiments to replicate the process / substantiate the claim. The question you're asking is possibly facetious, as you are patently aware that deliberate contamination is a very strong contender.

So what are you proposing if you do not believe the prosecution case?

[killingeve]

She is indeed.

How does retrieving old posts from non-entities on an obscure internet forum dent the prosecution case in this regard?

[Adam]

Hopefully David1819 provides a new scenario today. It should be quick to do as it follows the evidence.

His fifth/final scenario was barely long enough to be worthy of the name & had dozens of flaws.

[David1819]

Hopefully David1819 provides a new scenario today. It should be quick to do as it follows the evidence.

His fifth/final scenario was barely long enough to be worthy of the name & had dozens of flaws.

My scenario will not change. It matches the evidence to the best of my knowledge. Your perceived "flaws" have all been summarily dismissed.

[Adam]

My scenario will not change. It matches the evidence to the best of my knowledge. Your perceived "flaws" have all been summarily dismissed.

David you are just showing you are a guilter again. After your secret stance change was outed & your two reasons for this change dismissed.

Now you are sticking to an appalling and tiny Sheila scenario created 2 years ago. 

[Rob_]

If it wasn't Sheila's blood whose was it?  On the assumption it was Sheila's blood what viable options for a source exist other than 'drawback' as the jury was told at trial?

If I knew that the blood was 100% certain it was Sheila's blood and no one else's I would have to switch to guilty, but that's not the case. All we can say is that the blood matched 8% of the population, including some of the relatives blood groups.

Sorry I do not accept the silencer evidence at all, there were two silencers for a start. SJ thought so much of it that he just chucked the silencer in the boot. DB's witness statement where he first says he saw the blood etc. while at WHF then latter in another he says he saw the blood etc. over AE's house is just unacceptable.

[Adam]

If I knew that the blood was 100% certain it was Sheila's blood and no one else's I would have to switch to guilty, but that's not the case. All we can say is that the blood matched 8% of the population, including some of the relatives blood groups.

Sorry I do not accept the silencer evidence at all, there were two silencers for a start. SJ thought so much of it that he just chucked the silencer in the boot. DB's witness statement where he first says he saw the blood etc. while at WHF then latter in another he says he saw the blood etc. over AE's house is just unacceptable.

So what? It's the lab results that matter.

[Adam]

If I knew that the blood was 100% certain it was Sheila's blood and no one else's I would have to switch to guilty, but that's not the case. All we can say is that the blood matched 8% of the population, including some of the relatives blood groups.

Sorry I do not accept the silencer evidence at all, there were two silencers for a start. SJ thought so much of it that he just chucked the silencer in the boot. DB's witness statement where he first says he saw the blood etc. while at WHF then latter in another he says he saw the blood etc. over AE's house is just unacceptable.

Why?

[Rob_]

Why?

Why Adam? how can someone forget where they first saw the blood in/on the silencer.

Then no one seems to remember who called the police?

[Adam]

Why Adam? how can someone forget where they first saw the blood in/on the silencer.

Then no one seems to remember who called the police?

Well someone did.

[Rob_]

Well someone did.

Yes I know that someone did Adam, my point is how can the person who actually did call the police not remember. They have found a momentous piece of evidence! it's not like asking who picked up the Sunday paper.

[David1819]

Why Adam? how can someone forget where they first saw the blood in/on the silencer.

Then no one seems to remember who called the police?

It was AE.

September statement.

"We discussed the implication of how this silencer could be in the gun cupboard with blood and paint on it. Obviously if it was being alleged that somebody had had a brainstorm and shot dead four people they would surely not have stopped to remove the silencer, put it back in the gun cupboard, go back upstairs and shoot herself dead. Contact was made with the police about the discovery of the blood and paint stained silencer."

Examination at trial.

ARLIDGE: As a result of that being found, were police contacted?
ANN EATON: Yes, Witham Police
ARLIDGE: Do you know the date on which that took place?
ANN EATON: Saturday night.
ARLIDGE: That very evening?
ANN EATON: Yes.
MR. Justice Drake: (To the witness): Q: Who actually contacted them?
ANN EATON: It was probably me, but I cannot remember, but Witham Police were contacted.